Kids Fighting Back

[jasoncran]

for the record i was a pacifist, anti-gun and anti-military.

and seldom fought unless really really pushed.it gets old not sticking up for myself

i got made fun of alot in high school and to this day i dont talk much on those days as it was bad for me. but some of that i brought on myself.

that is another thread.

 

[jasoncran]

could backfire?

wow thats a false dilemma? how about if you train them to hurt and at the same time say use this only when you have too and they wont because its a long time to get that good with bumps and bruises.

they will think man if i get in a fight and get hurt it will suck. so if i can i will avoid that at all costs.


as i sit typing my lip is busted and has two cuts and my tmj is sore.why? i got struck by an elbow in the mouth while defending from side control.

and that was someone who is better then me and didnt really try to do that. imagine if it was fight. i would be done.

 

[Lewis]

Again, what seems to "work" in terms of making our lives better is not the appropriate criteria!!!

Jesus said the way of the gospel was one of bearing our own crosses. So why do you seem to think that if using force enabled you to escape a problem, that this is what Jesus would approve of?

Did Jesus "fight back"?

Drew if you would like to be a punching bag, you go right ahead. And also I think that a man that will not fight for his wife and kids is a coward. I am just saying my true honest feelings. I am not trying to insult anybody. and I also think that a parent who tells his child to stand there and take a beat down or lay there while being stomped to death is a coward and completely out of touch with reality. And again I am not trying to insult, but I should let you know my true feelings.

 

[jasoncran]

jesus also healed men by faith. yet with the counter arguments it rush to man who has no cure as like god can and yet with reasonable and logical thinking its highly inconstistent
to say god uses science and men to heal us and not think the same when we are in a plight of life or death or the same for a loved one.

we could be the very answer for that eldery lady being raped or robbed.

 

[Drew]

childeye.

Can you please provide a post or posts to support this claim.

 

[Drew]

Drew if you would like to be a punching bag, you go right ahead. And also I think that a man that will not fight for his wife and kids is a coward.

I guess this means that Jesus' own followers were "cowards" by your criteria as well. Let's carefully look at how Jesus explained the fact that His followers were not following the "any man who does not defend his friends is a coward" line of thinking:

If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not <SUP class=footnote value='[l]'>[l]</SUP>of this realm.â€

Jesus grounds His explanation in the nature of the Kingdom that He is initiating.

The line of thinking you are espousing is precisely the opposite of this. Jesus tells us that, in the Kingdom that He is initiating, people do not fight to achieve even desirable goals.

Yet you seem to hold to a different set of values - one where you ignore the "principles" of this new Kingdom that Jesus has initiated.

Apparently Jesus did not think these men were cowards - He characterized them as obedient to His kingdom values.

 

[Drew]

If you don't follow Drew's theology then you are going against what is commanded, according to him anyway.

I don't subscribe to Drew's theology. I'm also a saved Christian no matter what his twisted interpretation of the bible is.

We never have agreed on this point and we never will it appears.

I'm teaching my kids to stand up for themselves with only the force that is necessary.

Ah yes, the familar "I have no Biblical argument so I will say other posters are twisting the word of God" argument. Why are you not, instead, engaging the content of my arguments?

In any event, your avatar - the fist thrust in the air - speaks loudly as to where your thinking is in respect to following Jesus' prescription to take the path of gentleness and the rejection of the projection of power.

 

[jasoncran]

Can you please provide a post or posts to support this claim.

give me a few.

 

[Hitch]

Ah yes, the familar "I have no Biblical argument so I will say other posters are twisting the word of God" argument. Why are you not, instead, engaging the content of my arguments?

Because merri-go-rounds make him sick ?

In any event, your avatar - the fist thrust in the air - speaks loudly as to where your thinking is in respect to following Jesus' prescription to take the path of gentleness and the rejection of the projection of power.

Well he's right here GB, you need an avatar with a whip.

 

[Hitch]

I guess this means that Jesus' own followers were "cowards" by your criteria as well. Let's carefully look at how Jesus explained the fact that His followers were not following the "any man who does not defend his friends is a coward" line of thinking:

If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not <sup class="footnote" value="[<a href=&quot;http://www.christianforums.net/#fen-NASB-26822l&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;>l</a>]">[l]</sup>of this realm.â€

Jesus grounds His explanation in the nature of the Kingdom that He is initiating.

The line of thinking you are espousing is precisely the opposite of this. Jesus tells us that, in the Kingdom that He is initiating, people do not fight to achieve even desirable goals.

Yet you seem to hold to a different set of values - one where you ignore the "principles" of this new Kingdom that Jesus has initiated.

Apparently Jesus did not think these men were cowards - He characterized them as obedient to His kingdom values.

That certainly explains the swords they carried.

 

[Mike]

That certainly explains the swords they carried.

Hitch, the problem I see with this and your quote from Ecclesiastes earlier is you can infer things into them. You might be right or you might be wrong. But do you need to infer anything:

Matthew 5
" <sup class="versenum" id="en-NKJV-23240">9</sup> Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they shall be called sons of God.
<sup class="versenum" id="en-NKJV-23241">10</sup> Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

Matthew 26:52 "But Jesus said to him, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword."

1 Peter 2
"<sup class="versenum" id="en-NKJV-30419">23</sup> who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously; <sup class="versenum" id="en-NKJV-30420">24</sup> who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NKJV-30421">25</sup> For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls."

Look. I'm not going to demand that you or anyone else doesn't read scripture or that you have it all wrong. Truth is, while I come to grips with what we're told, I will have a very hard time putting this into practice. I defy Him in some way every day! But that doesn't make it right, and I keep trying to follow what He Tells me to do.

As the argument is laid out (and I laid out in the past) in defense of violence, there are vague inferences to support it and a whole lot of "gut feelings". I listed 3 verses that speak to a peaceful resolution to violence, but you know and I know there are many more.

This isn't about me being right and you being wrong. Besides Christ telling His apostles to carry a sword, what else does He say to possibly support return violence? We know time and time again, He Tells us pointedly to refrain from it.

 

[Hitch]

Hitch, the problem I see with this and your quote from Ecclesiastes earlier is you can infer things into them. You might be right or you might be wrong. But do you need to infer anything:

Nope. A time for peace and a time for war are about as plain as it gets.

Matthew 5
" <sup class="versenum" id="en-NKJV-23240">9</sup> Blessed are the peacemakers,
For they shall be called sons of God.

Ok Who fits here and how is peace defined? Is it appeasement ala Neville Chamberlain? The 14 pointed Wilson?

<sup class="versenum" id="en-NKJV-23241">10</sup> Blessed are those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake,
For theirs is the kingdom of heaven."

Matthew 26:52 "But Jesus said to him, “Put your sword in its place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword."

1 Peter 2
"<sup class="versenum" id="en-NKJV-30419">23</sup> who, when He was reviled, did not revile in return; when He suffered, He did not threaten, but committed Himself to Him who judges righteously; <sup class="versenum" id="en-NKJV-30420">24</sup> who Himself bore our sins in His own body on the tree, that we, having died to sins, might live for righteousness—by whose stripes you were healed. <sup class="versenum" id="en-NKJV-30421">25</sup> For you were like sheep going astray, but have now returned to the Shepherd and Overseer of your souls."

Look. I'm not going to demand that you or anyone else doesn't read scripture or that you have it all wrong. Truth is, while I come to grips with what we're told, I will have a very hard time putting this into practice. I defy Him in some way every day! But that doesn't make it right, and I keep trying to follow what He Tells me to do.

As the argument is laid out (and I laid out in the past) in defense of violence, there are vague inferences to support it and a whole lot of "gut feelings". I listed 3 verses that speak to a peaceful resolution to violence, but you know and I know there are many more.

And there is the entire history of the War of Conquest and the greatest hero of Israelite military history is the bloody handed Dave a' man after My own heart'. A vague inference? What should we infer from this extraordinary description? That God's heart changed, from warrior to pacifist? What is it about Dave that reflects God to be honored this way?

This isn't about me being right and you being wrong.

Agreed But you dare not call the police in time of trouble if you want to be consistent.

Besides Christ telling His apostles to carry a sword, what else does He say to possibly support return violence?

Obviously somewhere He must have said to disregard great swaths of the OT, right ? Just like modern pacifists.

We know time and time again, He Tells us pointedly to refrain from it.

Personal quotations from Christ are of the highest importance, some are plain some are not but every word He said was predicated on what had been written before, including Ecclesiastes, Joshua, Judges and all the rest.

 

[reba]

We are told:
1Co 14:34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law.

Mat 5:37 But let your communication be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay: for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil.

Rom 13:8 Owe no man any thing, but to love one another: for he that loveth another hath fulfilled the law.

Mat 5:29 And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell.

1Th 5:16 Rejoice evermore.
1Th 5:17 Pray without ceasing.

Mat 5:39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.


Are any of these verses 'more' scriptural then the other? Are they all Gods Word and carry equal weight? Would it be right to drop this verse, or that verse? Do we pick and choose?
Some how i see each life situation as being different and each needing prayer and good ol common sense. The Scripture will guide us though... In some cases an OT story of physical strength and power. Another time the wonderful lessons of the Beatitudes. For yet another the strength and power of Christ giving His life..

 

[Mike]

As I said, this isn't about "I'm right - you're wrong". It would be the height of hypocrisy for me to get all self-righteous on you, because I'm just trying to work this out myself. Hitch, I responded to you in my post, so I realize now it looked like I was calling you out. I wasn't.

As I say, I'm working through a whole new perspective. Personally, I see too many times when we are told to seek peace, and no where in the new covenant that we are told to strike back. As I see it, there were clear OT calls for war and necessary violence, but there is nothing in the NT. Perhaps we are told that through Christ's Sacrifice, we are to sacrifice ourselves and be witnesses to His Peace. Once His Promise was to include gentlest, it seems a believer's witness to a violent world was to be more profound. All I know is there is nothing in the NT that calls us to strike back or models it.

Hitch, the police are ordered not to use unnecessary force, and that is consistent with my stance. I don't believe it's forbidden to restrain someone who attacks or defend ourselves. In my mind, this separates me from a true pacifist.

Reba, if there was a call to strike back in the verses you cited, I don't see them. Honest. Little help!

 

[jasoncran]

for drew,

http://www.christianforums.net/f15/twin-reduction-unsettling-even-pro-choicers-38282/?pagenumber

childeye being pro-choice.

2

that was the easiest fine , i cant without taking time that at present i dont have look for his stance on bush.

 

[jasoncran]

As I said, this isn't about "I'm right - you're wrong". It would be the height of hypocrisy for me to get all self-righteous on you, because I'm just trying to work this out myself. Hitch, I responded to you in my post, so I realize now it looked like I was calling you out. I wasn't.

As I say, I'm working through a whole new perspective. Personally, I see too many times when we are told to seek peace, and no where in the new covenant that we are told to strike back. As I see it, there were clear OT calls for war and necessary violence, but there is nothing in the NT. Perhaps we are told that through Christ's Sacrifice, we are to sacrifice ourselves and be witnesses to His Peace. Once His Promise was to include gentlest, it seems a believer's witness to a violent world was to be more profound. All I know is there is nothing in the NT that calls us to strike back or models it.

Hitch, the police are ordered not to use unnecessary force, and that is consistent with my stance. I don't believe it's forbidden to restrain someone who attacks or defend ourselves. In my mind, this separates me from a true pacifist.

Reba, if there was a call to strike back in the verses you cited, I don't see them. Honest. Little help!

a cop killing a suspect that refuses to comply after escalating the threat matrix isnt what the lord had in mind if we are to take that think that way.

common sense if the guy has a knife and is going to stab you, trying to pin him wont cut it. hurt him enough to stop him or escape and if you have a gun fire until the threat ceases. if he lives then so be it.

 

[Drew]

deleted own post.

 

[Drew]

Some of the folks here who say don't fight back. Support the government models that support abortion. I would guess that is because the unborn have no way of fighting back... What hypocrisy 2

I remind you that you have not named one such person.

 

[Drew]

reba and jason:

I agree that childeye has demonstrated a "pro-choice" position. But where, and please be specific, has childeye argued for the pacifist position.

Not in this thread, unless I missed something.

 

[Drew]

I'm not talking about defending ourselves from attacks. I'm talking about fighting back with blows ourselves.

I very much agree with this distinction. Although my posts may lead people to think otherwise, I am not advocating a "stand there and take it" response to violence. I would say that its OK to "fend off blows", or to try to "disarm", even through physical actions. But, as I think you are saying, once you cross the line to one where you make the injuring of your opponent the objective, then I think you have gone too far. I recognize this "line" is not clear in many situations. But I am not suggesting that people "let themselves get punched".